Recent Headlines

Re: “Big screen take on Chávez is likely one-dimensional,” Ruben Navarrette, Other Views, March 26:

Navarrette writes very little about the good that Chavez did on behalf of farm workers. He then writes a lot about the bad, including something he terms indefensible, Chávez calling the INS to arrest the undocumented (he refers to them as “illegal”) who crossed the picket lines.

Fortunately, a few days later, the Express-News ran a commentary by James C. Harrington (“Let's honor Chávez and his vision” Another View, March 31).

Mr. Harrington is the founder and director of Texas Civil Rights Project, which promotes civil rights and economic justice in Texas. And most telling worked with César for 18 years. Mr. Harrington calls for the honoring of César Chávez and his vision, telling the story we all know about a great American Hero.

What a sad state of affairs when it takes a Harrington to elevate the life and legacy of our hero, and a Navarrette to try and bring down that same person. Twenty-five thousand marchers say that cannot be done (“Empowering march attracts thousands; Annual event honors labor leader Chávez,” Metro, March 30).

This was an interesting article, but there was a problem. In fact, it's a problem I see in much of the media nowadays. The AR-15 rifle is semi-automatic. It is not an assault rifle.

One of the criteria for any weapon being an assault rifle is that it must have full-auto fire. While the AR-15 may look like an assault rifle, it does not fire fully-automatic. Many people think that “AR” stands for “assault rifle,” but that is a misconception. I do believe this is why there is controversy surrounding the gun, as its looks and the misleading name have fueled many arguments in the media.

The letter writer states that the owners of Hobby Lobby “simply do not want to pay for something they consider morally wrong.” This position reflects a total misunderstanding of the nature of employer-paid benefits. Fringe benefits are, in fact, compensation earned by employees along with wages. Once that compensation is earned and paid, Hobby Lobby or any other employer should not be able to dictate how it is spent.

If employers can dictate how employees use their benefits, should they also be able to dictate how other elements of their compensation are used? What if Hobby Lobby decides that an employee's choice of church or political affiliation is, from their perspective, morally wrong and therefore withhold amounts contributed to those? To claim that the “religious liberty” of Hobby Lobby's ownership is “at risk” is unfounded and irrational.